Singh case highlights dangers for journalists and bloggers

I once believed I lived in a country where freedom of speech and freedom of the press could be taken for granted. I now know I was wrong.

The Simon Singh libel case (which we've covered here and here) has made me think that England has the most restrictive, repressive and illiberal libel laws of any country in the English speaking world.

These bad laws are being exploited, often by rich and powerful foreigners, to silence people they dislike. Anyone who cares about liberal values and freedom of expression - and that includes good, questioning science journalism - ought to be scandalised by what is going on.

For the uninitiated, the Singh case centres on an article published
in the Guardian newspaper last year in which Singh accused the British
Chiropractic Association (BCA) of "happily" promoting "bogus"
treatments.

The BCA sued him for libel. A preliminary hearing at the High Court
in London to decide the meaning of the article (and hence set the
ground rules for a full trial) ruled that Singh's words were tantamount
to accusing the BCA of knowingly deceiving people. It is widely agreed
that Singh cannot now win the case, and that the ruling may have
implications for what science writers and bloggers can say about
alternative and complementary medicine if they want to avoid libel
action.

At a public meeting last night in support of Singh, columnist and commentator Nick Cohen
outlined a litany of shameful cases to illustrate the iniquity of
English libel law. Did you hear the one about the famous film director,
on the run in France from a charge of unlawful sex with a minor in the
US, who sued an American magazine for libel - in the English courts?
Unable to come to London in person for fear of being arrested and sent
home to face justice, the director asked if he could give his evidence
via videolink from France. He was allowed to, and won.

Or what about the Saudi oil sheik who sued an American author in the
English courts for documenting links between his charity and funding
for Al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11? The sheik, who was involved in the BCCI scandal - until recently the biggest banking scandals of all time - somehow won.

Or what about the Icelandic bank that threatened a Danish newspaper
with an with an English libel action if it went ahead and printed an
investigative story about the bank's finances?

What business, you might ask, does a US film director, a Saudi sheik
or an Icelandic bank have using the English legal system to sue other
foreigners for libel? The answer is "because they can". They know their
best chance of muzzling their detractors is to hot-foot it to London
and try their luck in the bent casino of English libel law. London has
become a "plaintiffs paradise" where rich and powerful libel tourists
come to seek censorship of facts and opinions they don't like.

At least both Singh and the "person" suing him - the British
Chiropractor Association - are British. Not that that makes the case
any more palatable to supporters of free speech, as the large and
enthusiastic turnout at last night's meeting (supported by Index on Censorship) showed. Alongside Cohen on the podium were psychologist and pseudoscience buster Chris French, physicist Brian Cox, comedian Dave Gorman and liberal democrat MP Evan Harris
(one of the most vocal supporters of science in the House of Commons).
Before proceedings got underway, a message of support
was read out from none other than James Randi.

There was a sense last night that we are at the start of something
important - a grass-roots movement to reform this country's repressive
libel laws. Cohen likened the public mood to that before the
legalisation of homosexuality, when it was clear to the man on the
street that the law was wrong and must be changed. It took time for
the legal system to catch up then, but it did, eventually. Let us hope
libel laws go the same way.

Last night was also about Singh, of course. He was unable to
announce what he was going to do next - his options are to settle,
press on (and almost certainly lose) or appeal. It was pretty clear
what his supporters want him to do: appeal, to keep the case in the
public eye and expose the laws for what they are.

If he does press on there is some prospect of a fighting fund being
set up to help bankroll his case - though apparently the laws on
third-party funding of English court cases are complex and may not
allow this.

Even so, chances are that a fund will be set up to help and support
other science writers or bloggers who wake up one morning to find they
are being sued for libel for making entirely reasonable statements. It
could be you. Seriously.

Best be careful, wouldn't want the british bar association to sue you for libel now.

ColonelFazackerley
on May 19, 2009 3:28 PM

I was about to write to my MP. However, my MP is Evan Harris, and very proud of him, I am too.

James
on May 19, 2009 5:29 PM

I would like to see this highlighted by the mainstream press. I think The Independent should possibly make it a big story about our libel laws in general. Maybe that's the only way to get it in the public eye.

By sri
on May 19, 2009 6:07 PM

Not being a UK-resident I am not familiar its laws and am going by your representation of it. It does seem appalling that anyone -- even non-residents -- can ride the coattails of a loose system and strong arm people.

That said, why shouldn't Mr. Singh's statement be construed as libel? The Oxford English dictionary says that libel is "the publication of a false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation".

That is how the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has apparently interpreted his words. Just as Mr. Singh should have the liberty to say what's on his mind (and back it up when challenged), BCA I'd suppose is within its right to take umbrage.

Right?

Think Again
on May 19, 2009 7:13 PM

Established medicine has sued alternative practitioners long enough. Time for payback.

Perhaps it is time Journalists were made to be responsible. This guy may be right or wrong, I do not care.

What I care about is the often MISrepresented truth allocated to the public by one eyed journalists and editors. Which, BTW, they rarely give retraction coverage like the original press releases.

When journalism merges with gossip and faslehoods, contrived or accidental, it is no longer credible and sooner or later intelligent people will start to get tired of being fed translucent BS.

Luck there are so many mushrooms in society, huh?

Michael Gray
on May 20, 2009 8:39 AM

sri wrote: '...why shouldn't Mr. Singh's statement be construed as libel? The Oxford English dictionary says that libel is "the publication of a false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation".'

Because it was NOT a false statement, given the context.

Galaxiom
on May 20, 2009 10:36 AM

Chiropractors are fed up with being labelled as frauds by those who presume they know better despite having no understanding of the phisiology involved.

Back pain is at epidemic proportions in modern society and many problems are considered untreatable by mainstream medicine. Some of the treatments such as surgery can be worse than the ailments. Chiropractors offer highly effective non-invasive treatments.

Unfortunately many patients only visit a chiropractor as a last resort after years of malaise. Over this time their body has accomodated the problem as best it can and not surprisingly will take months of regular treatment to correct the accumulated bad habits. Incongruously they often expect to be cured in a couple of visits and dismiss the treatments as ineffective when they are not miraculously cureed. Frequently they will not even attend as many sessions with the chiropractor as they did with the ineffective GP or specialist.

Many important physiological systems are also connected by nerves that traverse the spine. They may not result in pain but most certainly have profound effects on their function.

Chiropractic treatment is covered in my health insurance fund. One does not normally see insurance companies covering "bogus treatments" so presumably they accept the validy of chiropractic care.

Forlornehope
on May 20, 2009 11:58 AM

The BBC's Prof Regan programmes seem to be able to address these issues without running into problems with libel. Normally a clear statement of verifiable facts should eliminate the risk of an action. It seems from the article that Simon Singh suggested that the BCA was deliberately misrepresenting known facts. That is another question entirely and difficult to establish as fact.

Nevertheless the English libel laws are a disgrace to a civilised nation. English lawyers and legislators should hang their heads in shame at allowing these laws to persist. There is, of course, no such thing as UK or British law.

Michael Kenward
on May 20, 2009 12:17 PM

The person who plans to write to Evan Harris should read his comment on the case over at The Economist:

"It is vital that this case is not lost because it will chill scientists, journalists, writers and even comedians from criticising the work of others which is vital component of the scientific method. It will also embolden the non-evidence-based (so called "alternative") health care industry to threaten any critic of their approach, work or claims. It will also add credibility to the claims of these organisations."

Keep up the good work New Scientist.

On the libel, does the British Chiropractic Association have a reputation that can be damaged?

Diversity
on May 20, 2009 2:00 PM

I think the applicable legal maxim is "The greater the truth, the greater the libel".

We need much stronger 'fair comment' and 'public interest' defences. This is the sort of legislative change that could be successfully launched by a back-bencher or a peer.

Mr. Singh is known to be a thorough researcher. If there were reliable studies published in respected medical journals demonstrating the efficacy of chiropractic in treating the diseases it claims to treat, I'm sure he never would have written what he did, and in any case, people like James Randi would not be supporting him.

Since they don't have scientific evidence, perhaps the BCA is standing upon anecdotal evidence?

I had chiropractic treatments which did absolutely nothing to correct my sciatic pain. And a woman I knew was instructed by her chiropractor to forgo chemotherapy for her cancer in favor of further chiropractic treatments.

Oh, I guess they won't want to use anecdotal evidence, either.

What kind of evidence does that leave for their claims?

By Thomas Goodey
on May 24, 2009 3:28 PM

Singh said "happily promoting bogus treatments". That is equivalent to saying "recklessly promoting...". It is not tantamount to saying that the BCA is knowingly deceiving people (although they actually are). It is tantamount to saying that the BCA is promoting treatments without 'caring' whether they work or not - i.e. is recklessly promoting treatments. Not the same thing at all.

Of course if the matter comes to a full trial, everything will be properly considered, including the truth or otherwise of whatever the statement is judged to mean, and whether it was in the public interest. I have confidence in the British judicial process.

The sceptic who accepts anything at face value rather than ask the question why, is no use to knowledge at large and science specifically. The sceptic who goes so far as to enshrine their opinion in the entrails of the printed word "scientist not maketh". Nor does it make their turn of phrase excusable.
What some of these gentlemen at the heart of this debate have managed to do was generate a lot of advertisement for their own work. From a scientific perspective it holds little value as it is pure reiteration of measuredly selected articles, laced with personal bias. In fact the most admirable aspect of all this is that the chiropractic profession really isn't all that fussed, testimony to the fact that these aforementioned gentile figures have gotten the line of investigation wrong and are talking about "chiropractic" as if it is one and the same thing as "spinal manipulation". Secondly, any clinician must deal and cope with risk, probability of success and patient-management. The idea that any form of care which aims to actually alter the way which one's body functions could ever be side-effect free is a complete misnomer. Anything with effect has potential for side-effect. This should be obvious to these eminent clinicians... Maybe they forgot to ask why...

Presumably much hinges on Singh - like most readers and writers of the New Scientist, I suspect - having strong but misplaced confidence that they know what "scientific evidence" means in all cases.

Seeing people cite Galileo's trial who have no idea what really happened at that trial, and enthusiastically agreeing something is "bogus" without studying any philosophy of science, is depressing but I'm getting used to it. Most of the working natural scientists I've met are Popperians who haven't given the topic much thought, but get very very angry when their views are questioned.

I've no idea if chiropracters are quacks or not. But it sounds to me like a lot of New Scientist writers think a court of law should defer to people like Singh, and that "legal" evidence can never compete with "scientific" evidence. A claim to take priority over the judiciary, in fact.

Might be an interesting trial.

?
Custom essays
on July 11, 2009 2:42 PM

All of us Americans need to forget about the freedom of speech and other liberties we used to enjoy. Now we need to fight those rights back. free essays
custom essays
essay writing

Being a foreigner, it's scary to know that you can get sued in England for something you said or wrote in another country. Even so, what will actually happen if you lose? In the case of the film director, what will happen if he lost the case? As long he doesn't set foot in England, nothing will happen to him right?

E F Orwell
on August 13, 2009 2:40 PM

The UK Libel Laws have taken another step into the abyss and could signal the end of Free Speech. A UK based media club, The Groucho Club which is owned by a billion pound corporation ‘Graphite Capital’ have launched a one of kind High Court action for a pre publishing test case for libel against Tyrone D Murphy, the author of an exposé book about the club. The book has not been completed yet and the case seems to be based on what could be written and not what has been written.

The writer is defending this action in person as the costs are astronomical and I am supporting this writer and his cause. All writers and journalists should also support him as he is in the forefront of the battle for free speech.

What do you make of this type of case where a legal action can be taken against a writer of a book that has not been written yet? This action is certainly a threat against all writers and journalists

www.g-book.co.uk is the book web site

By JeffSmith
on August 21, 2009 7:29 AM

I once believed I lived in a country where freedom of speech and freedom of the press could be taken for granted. I now know I was wrong.
lacoste---
lacoste polo wholesale---
ralph lauren polo shirts---
wholesale apparel

By JeffSmith
on August 21, 2009 7:30 AM

The BCA sued him for libel. A preliminary hearing at the High Court in London to decide the meaning of the article (and hence set the ground rules for a full trial) ruled that Singh's words were tantamount to accusing the BCA.
live score board---
soccer scores---
Sports scores

By MarcusNorth
on August 22, 2009 10:37 AM

The UK Libel Laws have taken another step into the abyss and could signal the end of Free Speech.
UK Essay---
Term Papers---
Research Paper Help---
Essay Topics---
Online Research Paper---
Term Paper Writing

By MarcusNorth
on August 22, 2009 10:38 AM

. A UK based media club, The Groucho Club which is owned by a billion pound corporation ‘Graphite Capital’
Online Essay----
Buy Term Paper----
Research Paper Help----
Essay Writing----
Essays

?
hijauart3
on August 29, 2009 3:26 AM

Established medicine has sued alternative practitioners long enough. Time for payback.

They know their best chance of muzzling their detractors is to hot-foot it to London and try their luck in the bent casino of English libel law Free Mp3 Free Mp3 Download Mp3 Free Domain helper free bookmarking free music download

sue
on September 27, 2009 4:52 PM

For people to be asked to respect the weighty opinion of a MAGICIAN i.e. James Randy is a bit of a stretch, no? Is this the same man who took the results of a scientific experiment and stuck them to a ceiling of a hugely respected REAL scientist and then helped hound him from his job?
No! he would never do anything so dastardly, would he? uh, yes he did. So Simon Singh and his friends might do well to reflect on their destruction of reputations and livelhoods of others who do lots of good work. What goes around comes around....

ian
on January 6, 2010 6:47 AM

I don't believe in totally freedom. There is really no country that gives their people the freedom to tell everything and anything. We always have limitations for everything. I remember my essay about freedom for my essay writing class but there's some words that my professor does not like, so the ending is that deleted those words.

ian
on January 6, 2010 6:49 AM

I don't believe in totally freedom. There is really no country that gives their people the freedom to tell everything and anything. We always have limitations for everything. I remember my essay about freedom for my essay writing class but there's some words that my professor does not like, so the ending is that deleted those words.

Stan
on February 9, 2010 9:31 AM

Just to play devils advocate. The phrase "happily promoting bogus treatments", does not equate to "recklessly promoting treatments that may or may not be bogus" as Thomas Goodey and others have stated.

I think the Court was absolutely correct in equating this phrase to 'knowingly deceiving', it is failry plain and unambiguous. If Singh had said 'happily promoting treatments that may be bogus', then thats entirely different. But he didn't.

I think were the law falls down is in the burden of proof. If the BCA want to win they should have to prove that their treatments are not bogus and/or that they did not know they were bogus. Rather, they just have to prove that they have a reputation that might be damaged, which then forces Singh to prove that the treatments were bogus AND that the BCA knew this and kept on practicing (obviously impossible). The burden currently falls predominantly on the defendant.

However it is still understandable why the law is framed in this way. If you perpetrate a genuine, unfounded libel that is designed purposefully to undermine and damage another, then its a further slap in the face to that person if they suddenly have to prove that the things you're saying aren't true. There will be moral losers no matter who the burden falls on, although I think to keep in line with public opinion, this swing needs to come back in favour of the defendant.

Stan
on February 9, 2010 9:42 AM

Just to play devils advocate. The phrase "happily promoting bogus treatments", does not equate to "recklessly promoting treatments that may or may not be bogus" as Thomas Goodey and others have stated.

I think the Court was absolutely correct in equating this phrase to 'knowingly deceiving', it is failry plain and unambiguous. If Singh had said 'happily promoting treatments that may be bogus', then thats entirely different. But he didn't.

I think were the law falls down is in the burden of proof. If the BCA want to win they should have to prove that their treatments are not bogus and/or that they did not know they were bogus. Rather, they just have to prove that they have a reputation that might be damaged, which then forces Singh to prove that the treatments were bogus AND that the BCA knew this and kept on practicing (obviously impossible). The burden currently falls predominantly on the defendant.

However it is still understandable why the law is framed in this way. If you perpetrate a genuine, unfounded libel that is designed purposefully to undermine and damage another, then its a further slap in the face to that person if they suddenly have to prove that the things you're saying aren't true. There will be moral losers no matter who the burden falls on, although I think to keep in line with public opinion, this swing needs to come back in favour of the defendant.

As the British Chiropractic Association's battle with Simon Singh continues to work its way through the legal system, chiropractors are counting the financial costs of a major backlash resulting from a libel action that has left the Lord Chief Justice "baffled". What was originally a dispute between the BCA and one science writer over free speech has become a brutally effective campaign to reform an entire industry.

A staggering one in four chiropractors in Britain are now under investigation for allegedly making misleading claims in advertisements, according to figures from the General Chiropractic Council.

I would like to see this highlighted by the mainstream press. I think The Independent should possibly make it a big story about our libel laws in general. Maybe that's the only way to get it in the public eye.

Ive been lurking over here for so long and finally have the urge to comment. 1st of all, I wish to thank you for that fantastic posts. Second, thank you for writing Top quality content and not just rehashed posts that can be seen elsewhere. Undoubtedly a cool site I'd suggest.!..well, I've been bookmarking this site, that need to be enough proof of me recommending this lol.

I think the Court was absolutely correct in equating this phrase to 'knowingly deceiving', it is failry plain and unambiguous. If Singh had said 'happily promoting treatments that may be bogus', then thats entirely different. But he didn't.

The current fashion climate might be a bit depressing, having said that this write-up helps us remember why we adore it. I graduated Otis Parsons School of Design and am at the moment functioning on building an on the internet discussion board for those earning a living inside the marketplace to join together. I truly appreciate your work.

Ramona Cole
on November 25, 2010 12:46 PM

I love Cohen. Cohen is regarded by his supporters as belonging to the intellectual tradition of radical writers such as George Orwell and Albert Camus. Formerly a strong critic of American foreign policy, declaring it was "Right to be anti-American" early in 2002, in November that year he announced his support for the invasion of Iraq and denounced the left for, as he saw it, "anti-Americanism" and failing to address Islamist ideology. "The left... has swerved to the right," he wrote in his essays.

itish Chiropractic Association (BCA) has apparently interpreted his words. Just as Mr. Singh should have the liberty to say what's on his mind (and back it up when challenged), BCA I'd suppose is within its right to t

I've no idea if chiropracters are quacks or not. But it sounds to me like a lot of New Scientist writers think a court of law should defer to people like Singh, and that "legal" evidence can never compete with "scientific" evidence. A claim to take priority over the judiciary, in fact.

The British Chiropractic Association dropped its libel action against the science writer Simon Singh on April 15th last year, filing a notice of discontinuation in the high court.

The case had become a cause celebre, with scientists, celebrities and freedom of speech campaigners lining up to condemn the British libel laws and argue that Singh had a right to express his opinion in print.

The sudden end to the case will strengthen the campaign for reform of the libel laws, which Jack Straw, the justice secretary, is considering. It is also a specific pledge in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.

The British Chiropractic Association dropped its libel action against the science writer Simon Singh on April 15th 2010, filing a notice of discontinuation in the high court.

The case had become a cause celebre, with scientists, celebrities and freedom of speech campaigners lining up to condemn the British libel laws and argue that Singh had a right to express his opinion in print.

The sudden end to the case will strengthen the campaign for reform of the libel laws, which Jack Straw, the justice secretary, is considering. It is also a specific pledge in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.

From Simon Singh
"It's taken me a couple of years, but at last I have finished writing Big Bang, my history of the theory that describes the origin and evolution of the universe. I tell the story of the cosmologists who invented the Big Bang theory and the astronomers who made the observations that eventually proved that it was true. Along the way, I try to describe how science works in general."